I appreciate a good Perl joke as well as the next Perl hacker, but if you wedge a "_$" into your code you'll just get syntax errors. Did you mean "$_"? That error (misplaced default parameter) I've seen quite often, mostly among Perl nubs.
I can't comment on the frequency or trend of Perl back-end systems. Most back-end systems I've worked with are J2EE.
Next time use a strict typing language like Haskell.
Your ideas on type-safety are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The only real point of failure is the possibility of the switch going bad, but I can't say that I've ever seen that personally.
It does happen, in reeeeeally old hardware. My ca 1990 Amiga 3000 had its floppy drive "disk inserted" pinswitch fail (slowly, progressively, over the course of 3 years) a couple of years ago. Annoying symptoms: With a diskette inserted, the system would randomly think the someone had removed the diskette and then re-inserted it. That's kinda bad for disk format integrity if there's a write operation in progress.
I had to replace the drive (ebay ftw). I supposed I could try to fix the bad switch (since I kept the old drive), but I've never had luck refurbishing the small-scale electromechanicals you find in things like floppy drives. Those things don't need a "No User-Servicable Parts" label.
But I think the critical point is this: the technology for stuff like media detection was available, and a few "commodity" floppy drives even supported it. But not universally. Amiga, Mac, et al, could rely on those features because they were explicitly required and those systems never used commodity floppy drives. PCs, OTOH, never specified this behavior, so support for this was kinda up in the air with the huge variety of manufacturers, vendors, and models of commodity floppy drives. 1995 was waaaay too late to try to depend on that kind of behavior.
What I've read about the Jan. 2005 X-class flare event, the energetic proton burst arrived at only 15 minutes after visual detection of the flare, telling me that (A) 15 minutes is a historically realistic value for "least amount of warning from Earth-based optical sensors", and (B) protons from a very energetic flare can get accelerated to.33C, which is scary*. I'd hate to be in a spacecraft or on ISS when that happens. It'd be like standing in a particle accelerator beam tuned up to 100MeV.
*Actually, accelerated faster than.33C. This paper seems to be saying that there was about a 2-3 minute delay from start of flare to particle injection. I think. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a space physicist or a geosolar meteorologist, just a long-time kibitzer.
and it also tells me that there's very little novel in this tie-in between server manufacturer and storage vendor (i.e., the same company).
Custom firmware on Apple hard drives? That goes back to the first Apple SCSI hard drive on the first hard-drive-included Macintosh. Apple Drive Setup, anyone?
"Server-grade" hard disks with specialized "drive module" casings or fixtures? Sun servers had this feature ("SPUDs") waaay back, at least to 1996.
Specialized, "extensive", testing of their parts. Yup. Every server vendor out there back in the.com era swore that up and down as well. Sometimes, it was actually true. Certainly, the lack of a published compatibility list of third-party parts was a strong indication of their attitudes on the matter. As well as the "use third-party parts, lose your warranty" threat.
I guess we should commend Apple on truly grokking the spirit of a serious enterprise-grade server vendor and following in the footsteps of the giants like IBM and Sun.
C'mon, are you really trying to deliberately move the bar to create your own virtual logical fallacy? "You call it junk, but you're still using it, so you must be lying!"
A more reasonable, less flamebait analysis would be "It's junk, but not such bad junk* that you want to throw it away as long as you didn't pay for it... and you would have to pay for its replacement."
I'd be curious to hear what criteria you use to say "not started". GP's cited article says that the 01/2008 observation of a reversed-polarity sunspot constitutes the start of Cycle 24. That's the diagnostic I've always heard, too. (No, I'm not a space scientist; I'm just a data and networking guy who's worked a lot with practicing space meteorologist for the last 25 years.)
True, there's no arguing that the sunspot count for the last 20 months has been positively anemic. A few of the more doom-n-gloom types around here ("here"==facility doing systems and software for large-scale weather satellite processing, full of former full-time meteorologists and space wx types) are muttering in their beards about a new Maunder Minimum and the second coming of the Little Ice Age.
It's an 11-year cycle (on average). Yeah, comparatively speaking, it's recent.
I know that 11 years is almost as long as you've been alive, apparently, but try to get some perspective. In geomagnetic terms, one year is an eyeblink.
I wire 75 baud 20 ma current loop leads directly into the muscles of my left forearm. I use slightly rusty safety pins to pierce my "insulation". I key Baudot by flexing my left index finger and decode Baudot from the computer by feeling the twitches of my left pinky finger.
Yes, half-duplex. It's a luxury, but you gotta treat yourself right sometimes.
Oh, yeah, I use csh too. Because sometimes you gotta treat yourself badly to compensate for the luxuries of things like half-duplex.
You forgot to mention that you're not a lawyer, and what you posted isn't legal advice, because clearly you aren't and clearly that wasn't.
They can't prove you posted it to those sites and there's certainly nothing illegal in linking to it.
"They" don't have to. The cost and annoyance of being dragged into court is punishment enough, just to face the "unprovable" accusation that you transferred "their" intellectual property to another hosting regime. Furthermore, the standard of proof is lower. If you're thinking "reasonable doubt", you're wrong. "Preponderance of evidence" is the test in a civil case, which, I believe, roughly means "the jury thinks you're the most likely culprit." Since the defendant is the most likely culprit until presenting a convincing defense to the contrary, that's no win.
Also, it appears that the position on "linking to copyrighted material" is evolving. A few cases have said it's not an automatic copyvio; others have ruled that it is. (Look up "contributory infringement".)
This will a) Allow discussion to continue, and b) Wind the lawyers and company up no end as they'll be powerless to act.
Well, as to a), so does the procedure actually followed, as called for by DMCA: honor the takedown, file a counterclaim, give the rightsholder time to respond, and when they don't restore the material. As to b)... well, if the point of the exercise is stickin' it to the MAN, good on ya. Fight the power and all that. But if the point is supporting mature discussion of serious subjects that are being held inappropriately secret, it's irrelevant. And, no, "they" won't be powerless to act. Ask Scientology's lawsuit victims. Even when Scientology lost in the end, it cost their opponents dearly, and victory was never certain.
As to the last para, it's true that rehosting the material someplace beyond the effective reach of the DMCA will end the secrecy that the lawsuit is actually trying to preserve. Maybe that's the only accurate advice I can see in your comment. But don't forget to mention that "winning" that way still exposes the original party to risk. You may "win" in the long sense, but you could easily still "lose" in the court of law, and have to pay the full price for the strategic victory.
No, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I could be wrong. I'm sure parent poster is wrong. Get a real lawyer and get real legal advice. For $DIETY's sake, stop seeking legal advice from trolls and idealists. The law is no place for either.
Slashdot Mirror
As aptly summarized in 1992 by David Clark at the 24th meeting of the IETF:
We reject: kings, presidents and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and running code.
*No, I'm not being ironic, sarcastic, or funny. Every now and again, something is worth of sincere and universal praise. This is one of them.
I appreciate a good Perl joke as well as the next Perl hacker, but if you wedge a "_$" into your code you'll just get syntax errors. Did you mean "$_"? That error (misplaced default parameter) I've seen quite often, mostly among Perl nubs.
I can't comment on the frequency or trend of Perl back-end systems. Most back-end systems I've worked with are J2EE.
Your ideas on type-safety are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The only real point of failure is the possibility of the switch going bad, but I can't say that I've ever seen that personally.
It does happen, in reeeeeally old hardware. My ca 1990 Amiga 3000 had its floppy drive "disk inserted" pinswitch fail (slowly, progressively, over the course of 3 years) a couple of years ago. Annoying symptoms: With a diskette inserted, the system would randomly think the someone had removed the diskette and then re-inserted it. That's kinda bad for disk format integrity if there's a write operation in progress.
I had to replace the drive (ebay ftw). I supposed I could try to fix the bad switch (since I kept the old drive), but I've never had luck refurbishing the small-scale electromechanicals you find in things like floppy drives. Those things don't need a "No User-Servicable Parts" label.
But I think the critical point is this: the technology for stuff like media detection was available, and a few "commodity" floppy drives even supported it. But not universally. Amiga, Mac, et al, could rely on those features because they were explicitly required and those systems never used commodity floppy drives. PCs, OTOH, never specified this behavior, so support for this was kinda up in the air with the huge variety of manufacturers, vendors, and models of commodity floppy drives. 1995 was waaaay too late to try to depend on that kind of behavior.
Mr. Creosote: Bugger off, I can't listen to anything else!
Maitre'D: Oooh, but Monsieur, it is WAFFER Thin!
I remember rockin' coffee machines in the break rooms of their education centers. It's no mystery their most successful product is named "Java".
But they can count to one... nearly 60,000 times... I'm sure.
So is it true that folks with Aspergers have a hard time detecting subtly-presented humor, like facetious sarcasm?
What I've read about the Jan. 2005 X-class flare event, the energetic proton burst arrived at only 15 minutes after visual detection of the flare, telling me that (A) 15 minutes is a historically realistic value for "least amount of warning from Earth-based optical sensors", and (B) protons from a very energetic flare can get accelerated to .33C, which is scary*. I'd hate to be in a spacecraft or on ISS when that happens. It'd be like standing in a particle accelerator beam tuned up to 100MeV.
*Actually, accelerated faster than .33C. This paper seems to be saying that there was about a 2-3 minute delay from start of flare to particle injection. I think. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not a space physicist or a geosolar meteorologist, just a long-time kibitzer.
-1 PointlessRant
and it also tells me that there's very little novel in this tie-in between server manufacturer and storage vendor (i.e., the same company).
I guess we should commend Apple on truly grokking the spirit of a serious enterprise-grade server vendor and following in the footsteps of the giants like IBM and Sun.
C'mon, are you really trying to deliberately move the bar to create your own virtual logical fallacy? "You call it junk, but you're still using it, so you must be lying!"
A more reasonable, less flamebait analysis would be "It's junk, but not such bad junk* that you want to throw it away as long as you didn't pay for it... and you would have to pay for its replacement."
*Credit where credit is due, of course.
I'd be curious to hear what criteria you use to say "not started". GP's cited article says that the 01/2008 observation of a reversed-polarity sunspot constitutes the start of Cycle 24. That's the diagnostic I've always heard, too. (No, I'm not a space scientist; I'm just a data and networking guy who's worked a lot with practicing space meteorologist for the last 25 years.)
True, there's no arguing that the sunspot count for the last 20 months has been positively anemic. A few of the more doom-n-gloom types around here ("here"==facility doing systems and software for large-scale weather satellite processing, full of former full-time meteorologists and space wx types) are muttering in their beards about a new Maunder Minimum and the second coming of the Little Ice Age.
It's an 11-year cycle (on average). Yeah, comparatively speaking, it's recent.
I know that 11 years is almost as long as you've been alive, apparently, but try to get some perspective. In geomagnetic terms, one year is an eyeblink.
And with enough explosives, the inside is on the outside. And therefore slimy. Q.E.D.
Why is Rise of the Triad notable?
Gibs. Lots of gibs. Ludicrous gibs!
Also, the lovely delicate tinkling sound of incinerated skeletons collapsing to the floor after a well-placed flamewall.
OVER 9000!
No, actually, exactly 9000.
linky
(I can't believe that WP page has survived any notability test.)
I see the ST bigots are still out, and still bitter at losing the Amiga/Atari flamewar.*
Not that Amiga partisans aren't bitter at the Great Anti-Amiga Conspiracy. (See also Amiga Persecution Complex.)
*Actually, I think ST fans are just insanely jealous they never had a port of the BLAZEMONGER product line.
(At Hooters, it refers to server software).
Server firmware, please. Typically, embodied in silicon(e).
Circular reference for nerds. Dupe optimization that matters.
quoth the CEO whose company primarily sells and services server installations.
So, Mr. Fox, how sour are those grapes?
"Irony" == slashbot commenting about poor socialization.
That said, yes, we need good public schools, but avoiding bad public schools is a viable and realistic response.
-- Jamie Zawinski
But he's not a geneticist, so what does he know?
"For $79 more we can try EXTRA-HARD not to kill you in-flight."
Thanks, I'll walk.
Bash screens. Macros. Feh.
I wire 75 baud 20 ma current loop leads directly into the muscles of my left forearm. I use slightly rusty safety pins to pierce my "insulation". I key Baudot by flexing my left index finger and decode Baudot from the computer by feeling the twitches of my left pinky finger.
Yes, half-duplex. It's a luxury, but you gotta treat yourself right sometimes.
Oh, yeah, I use csh too. Because sometimes you gotta treat yourself badly to compensate for the luxuries of things like half-duplex.
You forgot to mention that you're not a lawyer, and what you posted isn't legal advice, because clearly you aren't and clearly that wasn't.
They can't prove you posted it to those sites and there's certainly nothing illegal in linking to it.
"They" don't have to. The cost and annoyance of being dragged into court is punishment enough, just to face the "unprovable" accusation that you transferred "their" intellectual property to another hosting regime. Furthermore, the standard of proof is lower. If you're thinking "reasonable doubt", you're wrong. "Preponderance of evidence" is the test in a civil case, which, I believe, roughly means "the jury thinks you're the most likely culprit." Since the defendant is the most likely culprit until presenting a convincing defense to the contrary, that's no win.
Also, it appears that the position on "linking to copyrighted material" is evolving. A few cases have said it's not an automatic copyvio; others have ruled that it is. (Look up "contributory infringement".)
This will a) Allow discussion to continue, and b) Wind the lawyers and company up no end as they'll be powerless to act.
Well, as to a), so does the procedure actually followed, as called for by DMCA: honor the takedown, file a counterclaim, give the rightsholder time to respond, and when they don't restore the material. As to b)... well, if the point of the exercise is stickin' it to the MAN, good on ya. Fight the power and all that. But if the point is supporting mature discussion of serious subjects that are being held inappropriately secret, it's irrelevant. And, no, "they" won't be powerless to act. Ask Scientology's lawsuit victims. Even when Scientology lost in the end, it cost their opponents dearly, and victory was never certain.
As to the last para, it's true that rehosting the material someplace beyond the effective reach of the DMCA will end the secrecy that the lawsuit is actually trying to preserve. Maybe that's the only accurate advice I can see in your comment. But don't forget to mention that "winning" that way still exposes the original party to risk. You may "win" in the long sense, but you could easily still "lose" in the court of law, and have to pay the full price for the strategic victory.
No, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I could be wrong. I'm sure parent poster is wrong. Get a real lawyer and get real legal advice. For $DIETY's sake, stop seeking legal advice from trolls and idealists. The law is no place for either.